DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 08/31/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-6 and 8 are pending. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1-2 are amended. Claims 1-6 and 8 are examined herein.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-16 of copending Application No. 17/341,940 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the additional features recited in the instant claims are deemed to be inherent properties and/or characteristics of the fiber-reinforced plastic composite of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-9, 12, and 15 of copending Application No. 17/277,472 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the additional features recited in the instant claims are deemed to be inherent properties and/or characteristics of the fiber-reinforced plastic composite of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-6, filed 08/31/2026, with respect to Choi have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8 contain allowable subject matter, pending the withdrawal of the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
US 2013/0252059 A1 (“Choi”) discloses a lower case body 200 of a battery pack case for an electric vehicle (Abstract; Fig. 2). A continuous fiber reinforced member 220b is coupled to a lower surface of lower case body 200 (Fig. 9; [0089]- [0106]). The continuous fibers are disposed in a plastic matrix ([0103]]-[0106]). The continuous fiber is provided as a woven fabric ([0108]). The reinforced member 220b can include a long fiber with an aspect ratio of about 1,000 or more as a reinforcing fiber instead of the continuous fiber ([0102]). Choi does not disclose a fiber-reinforced plastic composite formed of a lamination sheet comprising at least one first sheet and at least one second sheet, wherein the first sheet comprises a thermosetting matrix resin and reinforced fiber in the form of long fiber, wherein the second sheet comprises matrix resin and reinforced fiber in the form of fabric woven by continuous fiber, wherein the lamination sheet includes the first and second sheets in the lay-up ratio of 1:10 to 10:1, wherein the fiber-reinforced plastic composite has a bending strength of 200 MPa to 500 MPa and a bending stiffness of 10 GPa to 30 GPa, wherein the fiber-reinforced plastic composite has a specific gravity of 1.4 g/cm3 to 2.2g/cm3 and a falling weight impact strength of 5 J/mm to 20 J/mm.
US 2016/0272246 A1 (“Berger”) discloses an underbody of a motor vehicle comprising a base plate 3 and an impact protector 6 connected to a lower side of the base plate 3 (Abstract; Figs. 1-3). The impact protector 6 comprises two metal layers 8, 9 and the fiber composite material 10 arranged therebetween ([0025]). Berger does not disclose a fiber-reinforced plastic composite formed of a lamination sheet comprising at least one first sheet and at least one second sheet, wherein the first sheet comprises a thermosetting matrix resin and reinforced fiber in the form of long fiber, wherein the second sheet comprises matrix resin and reinforced fiber in the form of fabric woven by continuous fiber, wherein the lamination sheet includes the first and second sheets in the lay-up ratio of 1:10 to 10:1, wherein the fiber-reinforced plastic composite has a bending strength of 200 MPa to 500 MPa and a bending stiffness of 10 GPa to 30 GPa, wherein the fiber-reinforced plastic composite has a specific gravity of 1.4 g/cm3 to 2.2g/cm3 and a falling weight impact strength of 5 J/mm to 20 J/mm.
US 2012/0103714 A1 (“Choi”) discloses a battery pack housing assembly for an electric vehicle, comprising a lower housing 200. The lower housing 200 comprises an upper plate 210 and a lower plate 220 bonded to the upper plate 210. The upper plate 210 comprises a fiber-reinforced plastic composite material ([0042]). Choi does not disclose a fiber-reinforced plastic composite formed of a lamination sheet comprising at least one first sheet and at least one second sheet, wherein the first sheet comprises a thermosetting matrix resin and reinforced fiber in the form of long fiber, wherein the second sheet comprises matrix resin and reinforced fiber in the form of fabric woven by continuous fiber, wherein the lamination sheet includes the first and second sheets in the lay-up ratio of 1:10 to 10:1, wherein the fiber-reinforced plastic composite has a bending strength of 200 MPa to 500 MPa and a bending stiffness of 10 GPa to 30 GPa, wherein the fiber-reinforced plastic composite has a specific gravity of 1.4 g/cm3 to 2.2g/cm3 and a falling weight impact strength of 5 J/mm to 20 J/mm.
The prior art does not disclose or render obvious the lower protecting plate of a battery module for an electric car as recited in claim 1.
It is noted that claim 1 positively recites “the battery module is seated on a lower case, and the lower protecting plate is coupled to the bottom of the lower case.” Therefore, these elements are required and configured as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights